Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real

Posted on: April 1, 2009 - 10:24am

pauljohntheskeptic

Posts: 2507

Joined: 2008-02-26

Offline

OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real

In discussions with Caposkia on his thread regarding his recommended book (New Atheist Crusaders) we have mutually agreed to open a discussion on the OT discussing reality versus myth for stories in the OT. My position is that the OT is largely myths and legends with little basis in reality. There may be stories that may be considered literature as Rook has suggested though it still incorporates myths and legends as well in my opinion. The intent is to examine major stories and discuss the mythical components versus the interpretations by Christians and Jews that these events were real. Caposkia has indicated in many of his posts that he agrees that some of the stories are reality based and in those areas I'm interested in understanding his reasoning or any other believer for acceptance versus others where he does not consider them to be. It may be there are a few where we may find agreement as to a story being a myth or it being real though my inclination is little more is reality based other than kingdoms existed in Palestine that were called Israel and Judah and they interacted with other nations in some fashion.

Since the basis of Christian beliefs started with creation and the fall of man we'll begin there and attempt to progress through Genesis in some sort of logical order sort of like Sunday School for those of you that went. I’m not particularly concerned about each little bit of belief in these stories but I’m more interested in the mythology aspects. We could for pages argue over original sin or free will but that isn’t even necessary in my opinion as the text discredits itself with blatant assertions and impossibilities. Instead consider for example Eve is created in one version from Adam’s rib which can be directly compared to the Sumerian goddess of the rib called Nin-ti which Ninhursag gave birth to heal the god Enki. Other comparisons can be made to the Sumerian paradise called Dilmun to the Garden of Eden as well. These stories predate the OT by thousands of years and tell the tale of the ancient Annuna gods that supposedly created the world. Visit www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/# for more information and some of the translated stories, click on corpus content by number or category.

In order for salvation through Christ from our supposed sins against the God the events of Genesis must have occurred in some fashion. If the Genesis stories are largely mythical or they are simply a parable then this basis is poorly founded and weakens the entire structure of Christian belief. Caposkia claims I error at square one because I don't acknowledge a spiritual world. I suggest that he and other followers error by accepting that which there is no detectable basis. This is done by interpreting parables and myths by the ancients to be more than inadequate understanding by unknowing people that looked for an answer to why things were in the world they observed.

In Genesis 1 is the supposed creation of the world by God. In this account illogical explanations start immediately with the description of the Earth being without form and darkness was upon it. Light is then created and explained as day and night. Next God molded his creation into better detail by creating Heaven above meaning the sky and waters on the earth. He then caused dry land to appear calling it the Earth and the waters the Seas. On this same day he created vegetation with the requirement that it bring forth after its kind by duplication through seeds. The following day he created the heavenly bodies to divide day from night and to be signs for seasons and for years. He made the great light to rule the day and the lesser light the night as well as all the stars. On the 5th day he created all the life in the seas and air with the requirement they reproduce after their own kind. The 6th day he created all the land animals including man both male and female. The gods in this case made man after their image as male and female in their own likeness. He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth.

Problems start with this account immediately. The Earth according to science is leftover material from the forming of our star, the Sun. This material would have been a glowing mass of molten material. The land in any event would emerge first before water could exist as a liquid upon it due to the extreme heat. Light would already exist in the form of the Sun which according to current science is not as old as other stars in our galaxy not to mention in the Universe. The account mentions that day and night were made but this is not so except for a local event on the planet. An object not on the Earth would have no such condition or a different form of night and day. The account further errors in claiming the Sun, Moon, and stars were all formed following the creation of the Earth. In theories of planet formulation the star is formed first and planets afterwords. In the case of the moon multiple theories occur though not one where it zapped into the Universe suddenly. The statement that the heavenly bodies were created for signs and seasons is more evidence of a legend. The other planets and stars are purposeful in ways that aid in life existing or continuing to do so on Earth. Jupiter for example is a great big vacuum cleaner sucking into its gravitational field all sorts of debris that could eradicate life on Earth. Is this then a design by the god or just part of the situation that helped to allow life to progress as it did on the Earth? The observation of specific planets or stars in specific areas of the sky is just that, an observation no more and not placed there by a god to indicate the change of seasons.

One can also see some similarity between Genesis 1 and the Egyptian creation myth Ra and the serpent, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/StudTxts/raSerpnt.html . In this myth Ra is the first on the scene and he creates all the creatures himself doing so before he made the wind or the rain. Ra does not create man but the gods he created gave birth to the people of Egypt who multiplied and flourished.

Some Jewish sects as well as Catholic belief allow for evolution to have been the method for creation of life on Earth. This however is in contradiction to Genesis in that all vegetation and animals were to reproduce only after their own kind. If this is so, then evolution is not compatible with the creation story. Simply put the life could not alter and produce different versions not after its kind. Since obvious examples exist for variation in species such as evolution even as simple as fish in caves without eyes or color versus those that are in streams outside there is obvious adaption thus discrediting this part of Genesis as myth.

The creation of man in Genesis 1 also suggests multiple gods as man was created in their likeness male and female thus following Canaanite gods such as Yahweh and his Asherah or Ba'al and Athirat that may be a reflection of an older tradition from either Egypt or Sumer. Genesis 2 on the other hand has a slightly different version from a variant I'll discuss in a later post.

I consider Genesis 1 to be a myth, legend or a parable based on all the problems discussed with basis in ancient stories from Sumer and Egypt. I leave it to Caposkia and other believers to indicate where they accept parts of Genesis 1 as reality and to indicate their reasoning if they do so.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

no, a number discrepancy does not discredit an occurrence. There are many natural disasters and/or tramatic events that have cost many lives including the holllocaust and earthquakes where the number mentioned is general and is not known for sure. Does this mean that those events never actually happened? Of course not. The story as told still happened whether it was 300, 3000, or 3,000,000. In Exodus to be honest, who cares how many it was? If it happened, it happened

Of course the numbers matter as Joshua's genocidal hordes require the millions. No millions then no Joshua, no conquest, nothing. Joshua and all the subsequest stories fall apart for lack of numbers.

As to the numbers if they are not as stated then the bible contains lies. If one claims exaggeration then there is no limit to exaggeration sucih as Moses claiming the gods told him to do it. Such as the existence of Moses. Such as the creation of the Torah, Passover and the rest as exaggeration. Once you introduce lies even by calling them exaggerations there is no way to put that genie back in the bottle. All is open to question with NO WAY to distinguish between them. If you wish to preserve Joshua and all that follows then you must preserve the three million.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

I'm working on the next chapters up to Ahab. Will post it soon after your comments on post 790.

sorry. Life got busy... dont' know how I missed it, but I'll reply on it now.

As far as the links you've provided and the details you've described, I really don't have much to say on the topic. You've covered it well. I can see your take that the dating issues make you doubt as well as the people number. Doesn't 1,000,000 sound like an awfully round number to be accurate? So far, this consistent with issues we've discussed in the past. Of course it wouldn't be a million, but the idea is the army was large.

As far as the dating, even your article link doesn't completely discredit the story despite the 200 year difference:

"This negates the identification of the Great Wall as the fortification erected at Mizpah by King Asa, who ruled from

911-870 BCE, that is, in the early Iron IIA"

offering the possibility of it happening later. The basic gist, exact dating of scripture is unlikely. I said that from the start. That is not unusual for a writing of that time. No part of the article completely discredits the account from actually happening in history. In fact, it justifies that if dating were adjusted accordingly, it was absolutely possible. The dating we discover today most likely is more accurate than an ancient writer from thousands of years ago would have been able to conclude simply by word of mouth as most history was portrayed at the time.

and so it would go for any metaphysical being.. which is where the question of how we know the Christian God is the true God... which is beyond this forum

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Or a super advanced high tech civilazation from nearer the center of our galaxy with a history of a billion years could have found ways by now to make what we think is magic be nothing more than technology.

of course... and this super advanced race could have also had this unimaginable ability to create the very universe we're living in. Unfortunately, there's little if any reason to substantiate such a claim

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

It's not the name, it's the supposed advanced civilzation claimed that has no basis. It wasn't there or noticed by others no matter what you call them.

your'e sure it was never noticed, or could it be we just don't have access to the documentation? Be it that we've yet to see a timeline that replaces the one scripture is painting, we cannot assume no other culture has ever noticed. I guarantee we don't have all the information in our posession.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Forget about the name of the area, they were not significant in the history of the Hitittes, the Egyptians, the Assyrians or anyone else in the period we are discussing.

Archeaology also shows this as well.

They didn't need to be "significant" to have existed as described. what's significant to that particular culture would more than likely be hardly worth noting to a cutlure like the Egyptians... even direct problems wouldnt' be noted unless the Egyptians either were able to defeat them, and/or they found the defeat significant enough to brag about. Neither are likely to have been written. It's like me talking about the biggest thing that has ever happened in my small town that is being talked about years later... yet when I bring it up to a Bostonian they'll have no clue what I'm talking about.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I find it interesting you agree the history can be wrong but you still accept the story in the Bble as likely.

To doubt the accuracy of the Bible stories, I'd have to doubt history as we know it... all documentation of history from that long ago has the same issues from what i've seen. Even the ever so careful Egyptians have been found to have flawed historical claims. Anything that happened that might not have gone in teh favor of the pharoah would be either neglected or drastically altered, and anything in favor would be inflated. Very consistent.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No need to start with Nebuchadrezzar and go backwards, you can start with Sumerian cities and go all the way to Nabonidus using clay tablets.

You need to read a few books on Ancient Iraq to address your quest for knowledge.

I'm impressed with your desire to learn.

It's the way I've come to know God. I've gotten strong in many other avenues of scripture, except for the history part, which I'm still working on. Our conversations have taught me a lot. So far further confirming them in history to me.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

What is different with Finkelstein is he is a trained specialist in archeaology and is actually the one in charge of and digging up the sites.

I know his role in this. He's not the only one and others have disagreed with his conclusions... we went through some of that with Joshua.. Of course you're going to want to know names again... I forget at the moment. I'll have to look it up again... there's only a small handful of people who have done what he has in those locations.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I don't know the reasoning why people convert to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, or Scientology.

that would be beyond this forum as well. It's more than the history. It's the relationship these people build with this God the Atheists claim doesn't exist and the experiences they have with Him along with real world knowledge of the following and God's commission to us.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Maybe as follows:

Jew or Christian to Muslim - less taxes

show me which form to fill out for that.. I'm not seeing any of it.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Christian to Mormon - more wives

Any believer to Muslim - more wives, paternalistic society, easier to understand theology

convert for personal gain... that's typical of most religions in this world

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Any believer to Christian - pot luck suppers and you can join a Christian dating site

Christians do have a completely different personality and fire for life than your typical human being. They are definitely people to go after...

Loaf and Ladle was my turning point ;P. I forgot they made laws against Atheists having those kinds of get togethers...

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Any belief or not to Scientology - secret sex orgies

goes along with personal gain

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Maybe I should have said the Book of Mormon and the point would be more obvious.

The Book of Mormon is claimed to be true by the LDS. It uses places and names that exist as well as those that probably didn't.

My point was fiction and mythical tales can use the names of real people and places just like history may do.

sure, so then all fiction is history and all history is fiction. Both have the same issues it seems if you're strictly going by that.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I do see the timeline the Bible presents, I see it as incorrect. They do have an organized he begat him, begat him, story, filled with problems.

the catch is it's consistently incorrect, not correct sometimes, then 400 years is missing and something else happened, then for some reason an event that happened after came before another date but during another event's claimed time. It is consistent, which yeilds to the idea that it's historically plausible. Again its inaccuracies are consistent with history in general

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I'm glad you enjoy the discussion. I have always loved history. You never know where it may take you in the study of ancient times.

Books on history are important to understanding. They do have short comings, but that is better than no understanding of it at all.

agreed

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Not a accurate history book, definitely not a science text, clearly written by men and subject to inaccuracy. With that said, I have no reason to accept any of the claims in it. No life experiences that indicate any god is real or has been real or could be real.

Quite the opposite of you

well right, you're looking at it as if it was a history book. That's not what it is. Clearly written by men just as accurately as accepted history has been.

You have no reason to accept any of it because none of it means anything to you. I could take any part of history from that distance and take the same approach becasue basically, other than God, nothing in history from that early on really affects me today. My country's history starts only hundreds of years ago and beyond that, what do I care? (I mean that in a hypothetical sense)

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I have no idea who put the Bible together or why they did so beyond the use as a propaganda tool. Anonymouse claims it was Made in Alexandria in the 2nd century BCE. You claim it was ancient, put together from scraps of ancient text.

The stories are dated throughout the ages. I can't see how it was compiled then... maybe the Torah at that point... don't know that history well

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Were the Bible editors careful? Doesn't look that way to me from just the inconsistency in the creation chapters. Or the errors it makes just between the books of Kings and Chronicles.

editors were not the writers, they just put in what worked with history. the first complete compilation of the Bible from what I understand was from King James, but that was after the stories were compiled. There were many stages of compilation, first the stories individually, then the book itself.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

How do you know that there were hundreds or parchments that came together to make the story? Not the single effort claimed by Anonymouse?

First of all, there's no possible was the NT was compiled during that time, second, history dictates it. It is widely known we don't have I believe any of the originals from scripture, only copies. IN research, experts have been looking for orignals and trying to discipher sources. In the midst, they are discovering many texts we have yet to get our hands on due to the fact that though scripture has dating and number errors, there were sources for many of the books to be written. hence, the synoptic problem, something we'll be touching on likely 30 or so years from now in this forum.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

That story comes from the Exodus which is inaccurate at best and complete fiction at worst. You have agreed that there were not millions that left Egypt, but perhaps dozens to hundreds. The exaggerations alone discredit the story as told.

...and the rest of history is in the toilet with it then.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You should research how the pyramids and ancient monuments were built in Egypt. Claiming it was slaves is not correct. Even history channel shows this. The construction was done by the people of Egypt willingly as jobs.

...and if you read back a bit in scripture, the people who were the slaves for the unnamed pharoah were I'm sure working for pay just as any other slave of that time was. The story goes that the numbers multiplied so quickly that the pharoah was afraid their race would take over and ended up working them hard. He would think up many ways to try to lower their population.

Be it that the pay they were earning was likely all they could live on, they couldn't just stop until the time of Moses.

Obviously there's a lot more to the story, but the stories make it clear why this slavery situation was different than others.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Building monuments was not a slave thing as the storytale from the Bible suggests.

what's a slave thing to you during that time?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Yes Egypt had slaves, so did the supposed Jews. You don't want to go into that. On purpose I refrained from discussing how the Bible advocated owning people was OK. If the Bible is the word of the god then it follows the god OKs owning people. Yes, I know people wrote the stories including how it was OK to sell your daughter. If a god was involved, he hopefully has met his end by now because that is simply disgusting. Owning other people is savage. That alone is enough to discredit the stories most likely, at least for me.

it was consistent with life at the time, what's so unbelievable about that?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

You haven't read through Finkelstein's books, web site, some of the other books I mentioned or the other links as of yet then.

I had told you that. if it's from his books, I'll fit those in somewhere.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

1-The story claimed far more than just escape from Egypt. The details of the story have issues when the number of people are reduced to 10 or 300.

Examples but not totally inclusive:

The taking of massive amounts of treasures from Egypt on their departure is not mentioned in regard to the Hebrews (since Hebrews are not mentioned at all in Egypt), however this is claimed in regard to Sethnakht that he had stopped rebels who had stolen gold and silver circa 1184 BCE. So why not the Hebrews/

were the Hebrews stopped?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Destroying the army of Egypt in the Red Sea. You'd think this would have been mentioned somewhere.

why? it made the pharoah and Egypt look bad and their gods false

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Large group waits for Moses to come down from Mt Sinai - are 10 people a large group?

sure, why not. it really depends on your reference point.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Many are swallowed up in the ground - so 5 get swallowed up in the ground and 5 live? How do 5 people make 12 tribes? Or was it 300 or 3000 and half drop into a crack in the ground? And the survivors are 12 tribes?

People are in 2 groups at several points those with Moses and those with Aaron. 5 + 5?

It would take many more than 10 people to carry the Ark, the tabernacle and the rest of the items mentioned in the stories.

so you're set on specific numbers again

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

2-The Superpowers of the time period controlled the area in question. Egypt, the Hittites, the Assyrians, and even the Arameans.

It is difficult to fit in the super kingdoms of Israel/Judah as claimed in the OT with the area either controlled or influenced by one or more of the superpowers.

3-Finally,10 people aren't 12 tribes, neither are 300.

...and in conlcusion, if the numbers were that blatently false, do you think it would honestly hold credibility with anyone by today? If you say yes, then you have more faith than I.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

The only thing under discussion here was the point the Chinese noted a new star. That is all they noted. A star is not the Sun. The Bible OTOH claims the Sun stood still. The Chinese account does not support the Bible in this, a star is not the same to them as the Sun.

no, but what do the ancients know about supernovas? How would the chinese note a new star unless it stood out from the rest?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I grant you that even Chinese writers may have religious beliefs, but simply noting a new star is not that.

even from a religious writer? that's picking and choosing what you want to accept, not necessarily what would be true then.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Pretty much everyone who wrote in the ancient past was religious about some god or the other, so the statement I made was in regard to religious texts themselves, not all writing. The writing's purpose should be considered is really my point.

I think we have argued the Sun stood still enough. I can't see how that happens without the Earth's rotation stopping. That would be a scary thing and possibly the end of the Earth as well. The Earth rotates at about 1000 miles per hour. The described claim means the brakes were hit. I wonder what the G forces would be? That would likely destabilize the Earth and it would go flinging off either into the Sun or out of orbit. Just saying.

And a new star or a super nova is not enough for the story in the OT.

If God is real, and He created the universe... then a claim of the sun standing still wouldn't be so out of the question. He'd be smart enough to figure out how to compensate for the problems. It'd be like today erasing something completely with no trace off a harddrive without damaging the other files, yes it's possible and has been done. If you built the universe, I'm sure you could figure out how to make such an event successful without problems too.

Ancients would see a Supernova as a sun, not a star, or the sun as a star and thus would easily confuse the 2 if a star supernova.

The problem I have with this as reason to doubt scripture is that the claim is perspective based. it's from a writer who may or may not have had an understanding of astronomy as minimal as the understanding was at the time anyway. The situation came to be that light was given when needed when normally it would have been dark. A new star? maybe, Earth stopped rotating... if God chose to intervene that dramatically, then he would have taken into consideration all the possible problems of doing so and compensated for them. Not out of the question for the one who created the system and designed it's processes.

The existence of Nebuchadnezzar can be and has been constructed from archaeology. So also was the entire history of ancient Egypt and of course found totally contradictory to the bible descriptions of it.

except for everything that has been presented to me from atheists so far.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There has been so much digging in bibleland that percentagewise it is the most dug place in all the world. Digging by real and biblical archaeologists, looters, road builders, construction workers that there is no place left to dig where something "revolutionary" might be found.

except for the locations discussed during the Joshua segment

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

That said there is no way to take that archaeology and do, as has been done for Egypt, reconstruct a history of the region which is closer than a light year to the bible stories. The archaeology does in fact show there was no literate culture there until after the arrival of the Greeks and then nearly a century after. There was no one who could have written and preserved the bible stories. There was no literate culture to have produced them until essentially the 2nd c. BC.

which is why any story that took place before has clear indications that it was written at a later time.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

In the 2nd c. BC there is no reason to assume using an old name from Babylon in creating an entertaining story of historical fiction would not be used. It is interesting that you would choose that name as Daniel is one of the books than can be definitely dated to the mid 2nd c. BC as when it was created. Obviously that name was written into the fanciful tale of "captivity" in Babylon.

There's no reason to assume anything else either then. People just did not exist... except for the writers at the time who had nothing better to do than to write fiction for entertainment.

Beleivers NEVER think things through because they are convinced they cannot be wrong.

only those religious nuts and atheists who have something to prove. If you're referring to me being that way, then I think you're insulting the intelligence of JPTS. With his historical knowledge and rational thinking, I doubt he'd still be talking to me.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Lets examine your facile excuse. You say errors are to be expected in the form of additions and omissions and mis-statements and "clarifications" by people who would have no idea what they were clarifying. YET you insist without substantiation that the "core details" were not additions or mis-statements and the really core statements were not omitted and their meanings did not change though clarification.

Mainly because they're restated many times by many different authors.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

How did you test this hypothesis?

many different claims from many different perspectives and sources.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Please provide the details of your testing methodology and the results.

Genesis through Revelation consistencies in the core beliefs of the following as claimed. Also through many cultures who have the following, though they're not the best resource be it that their source is still the Bible.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Cutting to the chase you have never tested what you said and there is no way to test what you said. So why did you bother saying it? Who told you this and why did you believe them? Why did you want to believe whoever told you this?

I told myself this after reading it and cross referencing through the stories. Why did I believe myself... well, I never lied to myself before. I've always considered myself to be a reliable rational thinking source and have always been skeptical of what others told me to believe, therefore my results are probably not going to have a cultural or religious bias.

Why did you believe those who told you I have never tested this and that it's not possible?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

However you invoke the primitive superstition of gods communicating in dreams and visions. Why did you do that? Do you not have a modern education? Do you not know charlatans are always having dreams and visions? That ALL the ancient gods did the same? Again there is no way to test the rather insane claim that these dreams and visions were intrinsically different from other dreams and visions.

no, there isn't... only can go on consistencies and what we know to be true today.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Again I ask why you invoke patent nonsense which you clearly have not thought through in a discussion where you puport to be participating in a rational discussion?

How vast do you think Solomon's treasures were? Remember he was a smaller kingdom, so his treasures in comparison to other larger kingdoms. If anything, it seems Shishak bragged more about the places he concquered rather than what he took from them. Detail from a relief in the Karnak Temple at Thebes details the raid into Palestine. The artwork details Shishak holding a sword in one hand and in the other ropes, which are connected to 156 cartouches each containing the name of a place Shishak claims to have defeated.

One thinks Solomon and his treasures were as desccribed in the Bible as well as his ruling the land from the Nile to the Eurphrates which Shishak did not appear to notice. All those 156 conquests were taken from Solomon's kingdom as in fact was liberating Egypt from Solomon's rule. Which do you consider to be lying? The inscriptions from Thebes or the Bible? Only one can be true. Exaggerations are lies save when one is being polite.

So are you saying finally we have a link to an alternate timeline? Can you send me a link of those writings?

no, a number discrepancy does not discredit an occurrence. There are many natural disasters and/or tramatic events that have cost many lives including the holllocaust and earthquakes where the number mentioned is general and is not known for sure. Does this mean that those events never actually happened? Of course not. The story as told still happened whether it was 300, 3000, or 3,000,000. In Exodus to be honest, who cares how many it was? If it happened, it happened

Of course the numbers matter as Joshua's genocidal hordes require the millions. No millions then no Joshua, no conquest, nothing. Joshua and all the subsequest stories fall apart for lack of numbers.

As to the numbers if they are not as stated then the bible contains lies. If one claims exaggeration then there is no limit to exaggeration sucih as Moses claiming the gods told him to do it. Such as the existence of Moses. Such as the creation of the Torah, Passover and the rest as exaggeration. Once you introduce lies even by calling them exaggerations there is no way to put that genie back in the bottle. All is open to question with NO WAY to distinguish between them. If you wish to preserve Joshua and all that follows then you must preserve the three million.

with your conclusion and the conclusion that Jpts and I came to that all of history in one place or another has "exaggerations" then all of history is a fraud. at least up to the industrial revolution yet there are still some there.

Too many people have the wrong view of history, focusing on what little there is instead of how much has been lost. Looking at our history is like looking into a bottomless, dark hole in the ground with a few small, narrow clefts and natural bridges extending across the chasm in weird and abrupt formations that often end in mid-air. This is what survived of history. The hole itself is all that has been lost.

To assume the few surviving historical records are absolutely accurate is foolish. In my own lifetime I've seen revisionist history at work plenty of times. It is unlikely to be a new practice.

Only historical records that have corresponding claims in other historical records can truly be granted a modicum of reality. The more corresponding records there are, the more likely the records are true.

No corresponding claims mean the record can be dismissed. Maybe it's true, but more probably not.

The existence of Nebuchadnezzar can be and has been constructed from archaeology. So also was the entire history of ancient Egypt and of course found totally contradictory to the bible descriptions of it.

except for everything that has been presented to me from atheists so far.[//quote]

Are you unaware of extensive inscriptions and tablets regarding Nebuxx on ruins matching the inscriptions? Are you unaware of no incriptions or tablets mentioning Solomon?

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

There has been so much digging in bibleland that percentagewise it is the most dug place in all the world. Digging by real and biblical archaeologists, looters, road builders, construction workers that there is no place left to dig where something "revolutionary" might be found.

except for the locations discussed during the Joshua segment

Perhaps you are aware of papers in archaeological journals I have missed. I have only come across such things in biblical arkie magazines such as BAR which cannot be published in real journals. Could you list of few of these papers?

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

That said there is no way to take that archaeology and do, as has been done for Egypt, reconstruct a history of the region which is closer than a light year to the bible stories. The archaeology does in fact show there was no literate culture there until after the arrival of the Greeks and then nearly a century after. There was no one who could have written and preserved the bible stories. There was no literate culture to have produced them until essentially the 2nd c. BC.

which is why any story that took place before has clear indications that it was written at a later time.

That would cover all of them.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

In the 2nd c. BC there is no reason to assume using an old name from Babylon in creating an entertaining story of historical fiction would not be used. It is interesting that you would choose that name as Daniel is one of the books than can be definitely dated to the mid 2nd c. BC as when it was created. Obviously that name was written into the fanciful tale of "captivity" in Babylon.

There's no reason to assume anything else either then. People just did not exist... except for the writers at the time who had nothing better to do than to write fiction for entertainment.

The oldest written record of these stories appears in the mid 2nd c. BC in Greek known as the Septuagint.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Beleivers NEVER think things through because they are convinced they cannot be wrong.

only those religious nuts and atheists who have something to prove. If you're referring to me being that way, then I think you're insulting the intelligence of JPTS. With his historical knowledge and rational thinking, I doubt he'd still be talking to me.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Lets examine your facile excuse. You say errors are to be expected in the form of additions and omissions and mis-statements and "clarifications" by people who would have no idea what they were clarifying. YET you insist without substantiation that the "core details" were not additions or mis-statements and the really core statements were not omitted and their meanings did not change though clarification.

Mainly because they're restated many times by many different authors.

The key details Buffy TVS, Angel, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Supernatural and a host of other fictional tales are the same. Also the entire body of jewish biblical stories going back around a thousand years in bible style do the same thing. Similarly the core details of the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Inidan and Chinese gods are repeated. I fail to see how that has anything to do with establishing authenticity. Perhaps you could explain.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

How did you test this hypothesis?

many different claims from many different perspectives and sources.

The question was HOW did you test it.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Please provide the details of your testing methodology and the results.

Genesis through Revelation consistencies in the core beliefs of the following as claimed. Also through many cultures who have the following, though they're not the best resource be it that their source is still the Bible.

We know nothing about the people who read the stories as they left no records of substance. The religion of the people is not the religion of the priests. From the records about the priests there were at least three factions in the 1st c. AD differing in very fundamental issues such as the existence of an afterlife. As to the NT it is clearly a record of an imminent return of Jesus. Obviously they got that wrong. It is the height of foolishness to think the only sources were so wrong on such a fundamental issue should be considered correct on anything else. But in any event their core belief was wrong albeit consistent.

In light of the above please provide the details of your testing methodology.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Cutting to the chase you have never tested what you said and there is no way to test what you said. So why did you bother saying it? Who told you this and why did you believe them? Why did you want to believe whoever told you this?

I told myself this after reading it and cross referencing through the stories. Why did I believe myself... well, I never lied to myself before. I've always considered myself to be a reliable rational thinking source and have always been skeptical of what others told me to believe, therefore my results are probably not going to have a cultural or religious bias.

Why did you believe those who told you I have never tested this and that it's not possible?

I have simply been reading your claims and you have never referred to any tests you conducted to verify the things you say are indeed facts. Just in case I asked you but rather than play the game I jumped to the obvious. As you have never tested any of your beliefs you stating them here is no more worth the effort than writing them down and then burning them. Why do you bother? You might as well say you believe in a million gods as both are nothing but your personal beliefs.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

However you invoke the primitive superstition of gods communicating in dreams and visions. Why did you do that? Do you not have a modern education? Do you not know charlatans are always having dreams and visions? That ALL the ancient gods did the same? Again there is no way to test the rather insane claim that these dreams and visions were intrinsically different from other dreams and visions.

no, there isn't... only can go on consistencies and what we know to be true today.

A consistency between people shows only the same cultural exposure. The people cannot be independent witnesses. What we know is true today is that people who claim dreams and visions are charlatans. That charlatans copy what has worked is hardly surprising. If you believe they are different that is amusing but of no interest beyond what it reveals about you. That you have not tested the validity of any of them shows nothing more than you will believe without verification. That is neither a mature nor rational trait.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Again I ask why you invoke patent nonsense which you clearly have not thought through in a discussion where you puport to be participating in a rational discussion?

Again you insult PJTS intelligence. I'll apologize on your behalf.

Who or what ever this PJTS is has no intellgence to insult if it believes without verification.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Too many people have the wrong view of history, focusing on what little there is instead of how much has been lost. Looking at our history is like looking into a bottomless, dark hole in the ground with a few small, narrow clefts and natural bridges extending across the chasm in weird and abrupt formations that often end in mid-air. This is what survived of history. The hole itself is all that has been lost. To assume the few surviving historical records are absolutely accurate is foolish. In my own lifetime I've seen revisionist history at work plenty of times. It is unlikely to be a new practice. Only historical records that have corresponding claims in other historical records can truly be granted a modicum of reality. The more corresponding records there are, the more likely the records are true. No corresponding claims mean the record can be dismissed. Maybe it's true, but more probably not.

That is what makes ancient history fun for me. I try to draw from what is known from archaeology and undisputed history (e.g. the extent of the Persian empire) throw in human nature (e.g. provences on the borders of that empire were liable to revolt). With that take official history and mix with surviving records that do not make sense if official history is correct and take a guess at what really happened. Decision making under uncertainty.

The fun part in my 20 some years of serious consideration is I have very few what really happeneds but a ton of that could not have happeneds. As one might expect religious history is the most fruitful. But even in secular matters the modern view of events in grossly distorted. There were years between the assassination of Caesar and the civil war. More than enough years for other reasons for the civil war to have arose but so far as I can find history is silent. It goes from the assassination to rallying cry with nothing in the middle.

Human nature: It is usually presented that Alexander got his foothold because the Persians let him cross the Bosporus for a fair fight or to destroy his armies completely. You do not read the Hellene culture spread from east of the Bosporus half way to the Eurphrates and down the east coast of the Med almost to Egypt. Mentioning the latter extent would piss off the believers even though the evidence is everywhere including two Clash of the Titans movies.

Anyway you are correct but that is what makes it fun. A puzzle with most of the pieces missing. An official history that never heard of anyone beyond the ruling class which archaeology only beginning to learn about them and therefore the social conditions. The more we learn of a city the more we learn of the 85-90% of the peasant hinterlands that made is possible. Learn the size of the shipping warehouses and learn the number of farmers. A city of 20,000 implies up to 200,000 in the surrounding city-state. 200,000 tells us to look at pre-industrial areas with similar populations to learn of the social order.

Take the Greek philosopher paraphrase "it is blasphemy to say the gods are as the people say they are." What did that mean? The most obvious is the stories of the Greek gods were what the people said they were like. It is a bit like trying to piece together Aquinas from the posts of Christians here. Christians realy just have popular stories about their religion. We would expect the same from the ancients. That is why I prefer thinking of believers as Trekkies instead of theologians. The same in ancient times. Dogma had not been invented back then. Only actions mattered. Beliefs about them were meaningless.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

Too many people have the wrong view of history, focusing on what little there is instead of how much has been lost. Looking at our history is like looking into a bottomless, dark hole in the ground with a few small, narrow clefts and natural bridges extending across the chasm in weird and abrupt formations that often end in mid-air. This is what survived of history. The hole itself is all that has been lost. To assume the few surviving historical records are absolutely accurate is foolish. In my own lifetime I've seen revisionist history at work plenty of times. It is unlikely to be a new practice. Only historical records that have corresponding claims in other historical records can truly be granted a modicum of reality. The more corresponding records there are, the more likely the records are true. No corresponding claims mean the record can be dismissed. Maybe it's true, but more probably not.

This is a good POV. This is exactly what we need to be looking at history like. The problem is everyone seems to think there are other corresponding timlines, but no one has shown me. Also to dismiss something on the notion that we haven't found anything else in the small crevice of that huge hole is also ignorant.

My take has always been "show me another timeline that takes the place of this one" none have done so.

The key details Buffy TVS, Angel, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Supernatural and a host of other fictional tales are the same. Also the entire body of jewish biblical stories going back around a thousand years in bible style do the same thing. Similarly the core details of the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Inidan and Chinese gods are repeated. I fail to see how that has anything to do with establishing authenticity. Perhaps you could explain.

You just supported the other post on consistencies and support in history supporting fact

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The question was HOW did you test it.

same way you test anything in the distant past... you research it.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

We know nothing about the people who read the stories as they left no records of substance. The religion of the people is not the religion of the priests. From the records about the priests there were at least three factions in the 1st c. AD differing in very fundamental issues such as the existence of an afterlife. As to the NT it is clearly a record of an imminent return of Jesus. Obviously they got that wrong. It is the height of foolishness to think the only sources were so wrong on such a fundamental issue should be considered correct on anything else. But in any event their core belief was wrong albeit consistent.

In light of the above please provide the details of your testing methodology.

What do you know of history? Did you research how the preists perspective changed to what they claimed in the 1st century? The people didn't have a different understanding until Jesus. they trusted that the priests knew what they were talking about...

There were also sects that would change the documentation they had to manipulate the people... this is consitent throughout history as well. Nothing new here. I don't know what testing methodology your'e talking about... sounds like you want me to put history in a lab and run tests on it or something?

My methodology that yeilded the same results is people doing their homework. if we follow similar paths to researching, we're bound to come to the same result. Those paths being look at everything and consider everything

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I have simply been reading your claims and you have never referred to any tests you conducted to verify the things you say are indeed facts. Just in case I asked you but rather than play the game I jumped to the obvious. As you have never tested any of your beliefs you stating them here is no more worth the effort than writing them down and then burning them. Why do you bother? You might as well say you believe in a million gods as both are nothing but your personal beliefs.

This is solely a historical runthrough of scripture, what tests are you expecting me to run on history? You might want to read the archaeological study bible or maybe Archaeology and the Old Testament for starts.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

A consistency between people shows only the same cultural exposure. The people cannot be independent witnesses. What we know is true today is that people who claim dreams and visions are charlatans. That charlatans copy what has worked is hardly surprising. If you believe they are different that is amusing but of no interest beyond what it reveals about you. That you have not tested the validity of any of them shows nothing more than you will believe without verification. That is neither a mature nor rational trait.

here we go with testing again... do you need to start another thread with me talking about testing? What is it that I should be testing that you're claiming I"m not diong? Again this thread is strictly history, not science. There's more to the following than just the history, but the history holds a key understanding to the following of course. It allows us to see where it's been and where it's going

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Who or what ever this PJTS is has no intellgence to insult if it believes without verification.

sounds like you might want to skim through this thread and see where it's been and where it's going.. you're kind of out of relevance here.

Are you saying he believes without verification? I'm only saying he's smart enough to know better than to talk to someone who is as you claim I am. By the way, PJTS is Pauljohntheskeptic... you know the guy who started this thread with me and the one I've been discussing with from the beginning of the thread up to now and beyond.

Yea, I get that this thread is long, but it is a step by step runthrough of scripture. Might benefit you to read back a bit before making assumptions about either of us. I suggest skimming through some of the beginning pages. Those books had a bit more history and details to go on in history than where we currently are.

We know nothing about the people who read the stories as they left no records of substance. The religion of the people is not the religion of the priests. From the records about the priests there were at least three factions in the 1st c. AD differing in very fundamental issues such as the existence of an afterlife. As to the NT it is clearly a record of an imminent return of Jesus. Obviously they got that wrong. It is the height of foolishness to think the only sources were so wrong on such a fundamental issue should be considered correct on anything else. But in any event their core belief was wrong albeit consistent.

In light of the above please provide the details of your testing methodology.

What do you know of history?

Please give me your testing methodology.

Quote:

Did you research how the preists perspective changed to what they claimed in the 1st century? The people didn't have a different understanding until Jesus. they trusted that the priests knew what they were talking about...

How can you be unaware that the only record from any priest in the 1st c. AD is Josephus? And as there is no Jesus save in what all but the most whacko agree is a forgery in his writing and as there is nothing said about any change in any event, how could you not know there is nothing to research?

Please give me your testing methodology.

Quote:

There were also sects that would change the documentation they had to manipulate the people... this is consitent throughout history as well. Nothing new here. I don't know what testing methodology your'e talking about... sounds like you want me to put history in a lab and run tests on it or something?

My methodology that yeilded the same results is people doing their homework. if we follow similar paths to researching, we're bound to come to the same result. Those paths being look at everything and consider everything

That is simply reading not testing. And you make a stupid by inspection claim of same result. Were that true there would be only one religion incorporating all Christians and all Jews. If that is what you call a test then your test failed.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I have simply been reading your claims and you have never referred to any tests you conducted to verify the things you say are indeed facts. Just in case I asked you but rather than play the game I jumped to the obvious. As you have never tested any of your beliefs you stating them here is no more worth the effort than writing them down and then burning them. Why do you bother? You might as well say you believe in a million gods as both are nothing but your personal beliefs.

This is solely a historical runthrough of scripture, what tests are you expecting me to run on history? You might want to read the archaeological study bible or maybe Archaeology and the Old Testament for starts.

I expect the same tests of history that are applied to all other histories. For example Genesis and Exodus were tested for their descriptions of Egypt. They were found to be 100% wrong. Thus they failed the most obvious test, Does it match reality? That is what archaeology demonstrated.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

A consistency between people shows only the same cultural exposure. The people cannot be independent witnesses. What we know is true today is that people who claim dreams and visions are charlatans. That charlatans copy what has worked is hardly surprising. If you believe they are different that is amusing but of no interest beyond what it reveals about you. That you have not tested the validity of any of them shows nothing more than you will believe without verification. That is neither a mature nor rational trait.

here we go with testing again... do you need to start another thread with me talking about testing? What is it that I should be testing that you're claiming I"m not diong? Again this thread is strictly history, not science. There's more to the following than just the history, but the history holds a key understanding to the following of course. It allows us to see where it's been and where it's going

That is misrepresentation. Many times I have asked you for the basis for your claims. You never produced anything but refer to unprovenenced material, stuff that appeared out of no where. I have chosen to let that slide and simply ask you how you know unprovenenced material is worth consideration by rational people and you refuse to answer these questions. Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish here when all you have is mere Chataqaw Tent testimony?

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Who or what ever this PJTS is has no intellgence to insult if it believes without verification.

sounds like you might want to skim through this thread and see where it's been and where it's going.. you're kind of out of relevance here.

Are you saying he believes without verification? I'm only saying he's smart enough to know better than to talk to someone who is as you claim I am. By the way, PJTS is Pauljohntheskeptic... you know the guy who started this thread with me and the one I've been discussing with from the beginning of the thread up to now and beyond.

Yea, I get that this thread is long, but it is a step by step runthrough of scripture. Might benefit you to read back a bit before making assumptions about either of us. I suggest skimming through some of the beginning pages. Those books had a bit more history and details to go on in history than where we currently are.

As you know the only known source of jewish scripture is the original Greek Septuagint and there is no evidence of anything older to translate and only well known forgery claiming it is a translation.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

I'm working on the next chapters up to Ahab. Will post it soon after your comments on post 790.

sorry. Life got busy... dont' know how I missed it, but I'll reply on it now.

As far as the links you've provided and the details you've described, I really don't have much to say on the topic. You've covered it well. I can see your take that the dating issues make you doubt as well as the people number. Doesn't 1,000,000 sound like an awfully round number to be accurate? So far, this consistent with issues we've discussed in the past. Of course it wouldn't be a million, but the idea is the army was large.

As far as the dating, even your article link doesn't completely discredit the story despite the 200 year difference:

"This negates the identification of the Great Wall as the fortification erected at Mizpah by King Asa, who ruled from

911-870 BCE, that is, in the early Iron IIA"

offering the possibility of it happening later. The basic gist, exact dating of scripture is unlikely. I said that from the start. That is not unusual for a writing of that time. No part of the article completely discredits the account from actually happening in history. In fact, it justifies that if dating were adjusted accordingly, it was absolutely possible. The dating we discover today most likely is more accurate than an ancient writer from thousands of years ago would have been able to conclude simply by word of mouth as most history was portrayed at the time.

Finkelstein did a painstaking detailed explanation of why this was not Asa and could not have been, thus discrediting the account in 1 Kings. On pp 26-27 he details that the stories were likely corrupted by the time it was written and gives sufficient evidence that it was more likely to have been Jehoash not Asa. That this is not what was told in the story once more shows the erroneous content was prevalent in the writing and that it was not trustworthy or accurate in the regard to events. That is the whole point here, that the writers used oral storytales and morphed them to fit into their current views in order to promote the"past glorious days" which never were.

So, all in all the 1 Kings account is not correct nor trustworthy.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

This is a history thread, not a scientific thread. What testing methodology would you be looking for? If you wanted to discuss science, we can start a new thread.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

How can you be unaware that the only record from any priest in the 1st c. AD is Josephus? And as there is no Jesus save in what all but the most whacko agree is a forgery in his writing and as there is nothing said about any change in any event, how could you not know there is nothing to research?

I'm not. No one ever claimed the preists wrote the scriptures. Are you suggesting that no one besides the priests could have been a valid witness?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Please give me your testing methodology.

What tests do you do on history?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

That is simply reading not testing. And you make a stupid by inspection claim of same result. Were that true there would be only one religion incorporating all Christians and all Jews. If that is what you call a test then your test failed.

So historians are failures. Good to know. You need to explain your testing request. I think I'm just misunderstanding what you're looking for. I have yet to use that terminology with anyone when discussing history. Testing is usually something we can do with current objects, unless you're talking about carbon dating, as to which we've discussed that here as well.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I expect the same tests of history that are applied to all other histories. For example Genesis and Exodus were tested for their descriptions of Egypt. They were found to be 100% wrong. Thus they failed the most obvious test, Does it match reality? That is what archaeology demonstrated.

show me this archaeology. If it was as conclusive as you say, there would be no believing scientists or scholars. Seminaries would fail to bring people to an authority in the following and it would in this day in age be history itself. that's not the case, so something's missing here.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

That is misrepresentation. Many times I have asked you for the basis for your claims. You never produced anything but refer to unprovenenced material, stuff that appeared out of no where. I have chosen to let that slide and simply ask you how you know unprovenenced material is worth consideration by rational people and you refuse to answer these questions. Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish here when all you have is mere Chataqaw Tent testimony?

Here, on this thread, all we're trying to accomplish is a fairly exhaustive historical run-through of scripture. JPTS and I have agreed that this thread is not designed to be a Biblical debate, but rather a factual run-through using history to figure out if the stories have a place or not and why.

All in all, it's just for fun... if you're looking for my claims as to my basis for belief, here is not the place. History is a piece of the puzzle that makes up my basis for belief.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As you know the only known source of jewish scripture is the original Greek Septuagint and there is no evidence of anything older to translate and only well known forgery claiming it is a translation.

There is evidence that the Septuagint is not the originals and therefore there is... or was something older, but we don't have those older scripts in our possession.

the discussion of translation and the process of scribes for scripture is a long one in and of itself, and would be a little off topic at this point.

Finkelstein did a painstaking detailed explanation of why this was not Asa and could not have been, thus discrediting the account in 1 Kings. On pp 26-27 he details that the stories were likely corrupted by the time it was written and gives sufficient evidence that it was more likely to have been Jehoash not Asa. That this is not what was told in the story once more shows the erroneous content was prevalent in the writing and that it was not trustworthy or accurate in the regard to events. That is the whole point here, that the writers used oral storytales and morphed them to fit into their current views in order to promote the"past glorious days" which never were.

So, all in all the 1 Kings account is not correct nor trustworthy.

I'm curious then. Who does Finkelstein say were the Judean kings from 1000 B.C. going forward? or were there none?

As we go through, I still do homework on everything we've covered up to this point. I don't remember if we talked about Pepy II or the Egyptian Admonitions. The papayrus in posession has had some difficulty in dating, but it seems that Egyptologists are split as far as it being evidence of the Exodus.

Finkelstein did a painstaking detailed explanation of why this was not Asa and could not have been, thus discrediting the account in 1 Kings. On pp 26-27 he details that the stories were likely corrupted by the time it was written and gives sufficient evidence that it was more likely to have been Jehoash not Asa. That this is not what was told in the story once more shows the erroneous content was prevalent in the writing and that it was not trustworthy or accurate in the regard to events. That is the whole point here, that the writers used oral storytales and morphed them to fit into their current views in order to promote the"past glorious days" which never were.

So, all in all the 1 Kings account is not correct nor trustworthy.

I'm curious then. Who does Finkelstein say were the Judean kings from 1000 B.C. going forward? or were there none?

The answer to this is easily found on his web site and in his book The Bible Unearthed.

Did you pick it up yet. I still have a copy of The New Atheist Crusaders available that you suggested - remember?

So Finkelstein indicates there were kings, however he takes a far differing perspective on how important they were.

And of course nothing from Assyria indicates exactly what god or gods were worshipped, so we can't determine anything to validate that.

No one argues there weren't people in Palestine, no one argues they didn't have leaders or city kings - it's the exaggerated story tales that have issues and lack of support.

We can discuss the evidence available as we get to each king's reign versus other records from Assyria, Egypt and Babylon.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

As we go through, I still do homework on everything we've covered up to this point. I don't remember if we talked about Pepy II or the Egyptian Admonitions. The papayrus in posession has had some difficulty in dating, but it seems that Egyptologists are split as far as it being evidence of the Exodus.

Just a random thought if you wanted to discuss it.

He reigned supposedly 2284 BCE - 2184 BCE, far to early to have anything to do with the Exodus tale. According to the Biblical story tales Abe had yet to leave Mesopotamia at this point in time.

The 1st link is to a book by Alan Henderson Gardiner titled - " The admonitions of an Egyptian sage from a hieratic papyrus in Leiden(Pap. Leiden 344 recto)" It is FREE online.

I would generally subscribe to the position that this papyrus is relevant to the Hyskos invasion, though it may be others such as the Libyans or the Bedouins.

I have obviously not read all of Gardiners book as of yet.

What is it that you see here that is relevant to the Exodus, specify either page from Gardiner or the section from the other link.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

In discussions with Caposkia on his thread regarding his recommended book (New Atheist Crusaders) we have mutually agreed to open a discussion on the OT discussing reality versus myth for stories in the OT. My position is that the OT is largely myths and legends with little basis in reality. There may be stories that may be considered literature as Rook has suggested though it still incorporates myths and legends as well in my opinion. The intent is to examine major stories and discuss the mythical components versus the interpretations by Christians and Jews that these events were real. Caposkia has indicated in many of his posts that he agrees that some of the stories are reality based and in those areas I'm interested in understanding his reasoning or any other believer for acceptance versus others where he does not consider them to be. It may be there are a few where we may find agreement as to a story being a myth or it being real though my inclination is little more is reality based other than kingdoms existed in Palestine that were called Israel and Judah and they interacted with other nations in some fashion.

Since the basis of Christian beliefs started with creation and the fall of man we'll begin there and attempt to progress through Genesis in some sort of logical order sort of like Sunday School for those of you that went. I’m not particularly concerned about each little bit of belief in these stories but I’m more interested in the mythology aspects. We could for pages argue over original sin or free will but that isn’t even necessary in my opinion as the text discredits itself with blatant assertions and impossibilities. Instead consider for example Eve is created in one version from Adam’s rib which can be directly compared to the Sumerian goddess of the rib called Nin-ti which Ninhursag gave birth to heal the god Enki. Other comparisons can be made to the Sumerian paradise called Dilmun to the Garden of Eden as well. These stories predate the OT by thousands of years and tell the tale of the ancient Annuna gods that supposedly created the world. Visit www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/# for more information and some of the translated stories, click on corpus content by number or category.

In order for salvation through Christ from our supposed sins against the God the events of Genesis must have occurred in some fashion. If the Genesis stories are largely mythical or they are simply a parable then this basis is poorly founded and weakens the entire structure of Christian belief. Caposkia claims I error at square one because I don't acknowledge a spiritual world. I suggest that he and other followers error by accepting that which there is no detectable basis. This is done by interpreting parables and myths by the ancients to be more than inadequate understanding by unknowing people that looked for an answer to why things were in the world they observed.

In Genesis 1 is the supposed creation of the world by God. In this account illogical explanations start immediately with the description of the Earth being without form and darkness was upon it. Light is then created and explained as day and night. Next God molded his creation into better detail by creating Heaven above meaning the sky and waters on the earth. He then caused dry land to appear calling it the Earth and the waters the Seas. On this same day he created vegetation with the requirement that it bring forth after its kind by duplication through seeds. The following day he created the heavenly bodies to divide day from night and to be signs for seasons and for years. He made the great light to rule the day and the lesser light the night as well as all the stars. On the 5th day he created all the life in the seas and air with the requirement they reproduce after their own kind. The 6th day he created all the land animals including man both male and female. The gods in this case made man after their image as male and female in their own likeness. He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth.

Problems start with this account immediately. The Earth according to science is leftover material from the forming of our star, the Sun. This material would have been a glowing mass of molten material. The land in any event would emerge first before water could exist as a liquid upon it due to the extreme heat. Light would already exist in the form of the Sun which according to current science is not as old as other stars in our galaxy not to mention in the Universe. The account mentions that day and night were made but this is not so except for a local event on the planet. An object not on the Earth would have no such condition or a different form of night and day. The account further errors in claiming the Sun, Moon, and stars were all formed following the creation of the Earth. In theories of planet formulation the star is formed first and planets afterwords. In the case of the moon multiple theories occur though not one where it zapped into the Universe suddenly. The statement that the heavenly bodies were created for signs and seasons is more evidence of a legend. The other planets and stars are purposeful in ways that aid in life existing or continuing to do so on Earth. Jupiter for example is a great big vacuum cleaner sucking into its gravitational field all sorts of debris that could eradicate life on Earth. Is this then a design by the god or just part of the situation that helped to allow life to progress as it did on the Earth? The observation of specific planets or stars in specific areas of the sky is just that, an observation no more and not placed there by a god to indicate the change of seasons.

One can also see some similarity between Genesis 1 and the Egyptian creation myth Ra and the serpent, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Resources/StudTxts/raSerpnt.html . In this myth Ra is the first on the scene and he creates all the creatures himself doing so before he made the wind or the rain. Ra does not create man but the gods he created gave birth to the people of Egypt who multiplied and flourished.

Some Jewish sects as well as Catholic belief allow for evolution to have been the method for creation of life on Earth. This however is in contradiction to Genesis in that all vegetation and animals were to reproduce only after their own kind. If this is so, then evolution is not compatible with the creation story. Simply put the life could not alter and produce different versions not after its kind. Since obvious examples exist for variation in species such as evolution even as simple as fish in caves without eyes or color versus those that are in streams outside there is obvious adaption thus discrediting this part of Genesis as myth.

The creation of man in Genesis 1 also suggests multiple gods as man was created in their likeness male and female thus following Canaanite gods such as Yahweh and his Asherah or Ba'al and Athirat that may be a reflection of an older tradition from either Egypt or Sumer. Genesis 2 on the other hand has a slightly different version from a variant I'll discuss in a later post.

I consider Genesis 1 to be a myth, legend or a parable based on all the problems discussed with basis in ancient stories from Sumer and Egypt. I leave it to Caposkia and other believers to indicate where they accept parts of Genesis 1 as reality and to indicate their reasoning if they do so.

There's two interpretations of the book-which do you want to use. All this was covered in all my posts.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

There's two interpretations of the book-which do you want to use. All this was covered in all my posts.

You have dropped by with 1 liners before, such as post #768

Old Seer wrote:

In the general conversations thread. OS

You assume I bothered to read your posts, you also assume I found anything useful in them.

Your strange discussion in Old Seer's Corner was nothing of interest to me, so I did not bother with comments in it.

What is it you want to discuss?

I'm not of the mind to go back to the beginning of this thread and start over and discuss Genesis again from go.

If you have something useful to add do so, one liners don't gain my attention much.

The question is which book do you mean? If it is the OT you mean, there are many interpretations of it, not just 2. And there are many books in it, some may be intermixed with some myth, history, and storytelling. Not one single interpretation approach covers it all.

A few of them are:

1-Literal - fundalmentalist approach - historical

2-Figurative - analogy - parables

3-Storytelling - fictional

4-Mythological - legendary

There were people who lived in the area we call Palestine. There were cities. There were kings. They were invaded. They were dominated. Others don't support the storytelling as given in the OT. Neither does archealogy.

Given that, I could just say the book is myth and storytelling in general and be done. I have instead been open to discussing the events given book by book. If you wish to join that discussion do so.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

There's two interpretations of the book-which do you want to use. All this was covered in all my posts.

You have dropped by with 1 liners before, such as post #768

Old Seer wrote:

In the general conversations thread. OS

You assume I bothered to read your posts, you also assume I found anything useful in them.

Your strange discussion in Old Seer's Corner was nothing of interest to me, so I did not bother with comments in it.

What is it you want to discuss?

I'm not of the mind to go back to the beginning of this thread and start over and discuss Genesis again from go.

If you have something useful to add do so, one liners don't gain my attention much.

The question is which book do you mean? If it is the OT you mean, there are many interpretations of it, not just 2. And there are many books in it, some may be intermixed with some myth, history, and storytelling. Not one single interpretation approach covers it all.

A few of them are:

1-Literal - fundalmentalist approach - historical

2-Figurative - analogy - parables

3-Storytelling - fictional

4-Mythological - legendary

There were people who lived in the area we call Palestine. There were cities. There were kings. They were invaded. They were dominated. Others don't support the storytelling as given in the OT. Neither does archealogy.

Given that, I could just say the book is myth and storytelling in general and be done. I have instead been open to discussing the events given book by book. If you wish to join that discussion do so.

You have your opinions. How many times are you guys going to go over this kind of thing on the bible. If you haven't settled it by now you're never going to. What's it been so far ---100 years. It's another exercise in futility which Atheist claim that anyone Else's input is an excesses in futility. So---carry on, I'll watch from a distance and see another no gainer and contemplate how you call each other stupid. But that's not my opinion. So, all you want is to listen to each other and condemn any other input and come out the other end without a result, only 2 months from now someone will start it all over again. The OT is nothing more then Hebrew history. They are entitles to their own are they not. Just because it's not sanctioned by a government does mean it's not valid. Why not ask the Israelis--it's their book.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

There's two interpretations of the book-which do you want to use. All this was covered in all my posts.

You have dropped by with 1 liners before, such as post #768

Old Seer wrote:

In the general conversations thread. OS

You assume I bothered to read your posts, you also assume I found anything useful in them.

Your strange discussion in Old Seer's Corner was nothing of interest to me, so I did not bother with comments in it.

What is it you want to discuss?

I'm not of the mind to go back to the beginning of this thread and start over and discuss Genesis again from go.

If you have something useful to add do so, one liners don't gain my attention much.

The question is which book do you mean? If it is the OT you mean, there are many interpretations of it, not just 2. And there are many books in it, some may be intermixed with some myth, history, and storytelling. Not one single interpretation approach covers it all.

A few of them are:

1-Literal - fundalmentalist approach - historical

2-Figurative - analogy - parables

3-Storytelling - fictional

4-Mythological - legendary

There were people who lived in the area we call Palestine. There were cities. There were kings. They were invaded. They were dominated. Others don't support the storytelling as given in the OT. Neither does archealogy.

Given that, I could just say the book is myth and storytelling in general and be done. I have instead been open to discussing the events given book by book. If you wish to join that discussion do so.

You have your opinions. How many times are you guys going to go over this kind of thing on the bible. If you haven't settled it by now you're never going to. What's it been so far ---100 years. It's another exercise in futility which Atheist claim that anyone Else's input is an excesses in futility. So---carry on, I'll watch from a distance and see another no gainer and contemplate how you call each other stupid. But that's not my opinion. So, all you want is to listen to each other and condemn any other input and come out the other end without a result, only 2 months from now someone will start it all over again. The OT is nothing more then Hebrew history. They are entitles to their own are they not. Just because it's not sanctioned by a government does mean it's not valid. Why not ask the Israelis--it's their book.

Agreed. It is utterly futile to argue facts with someone who proudly claims they have faith in magic.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

There's two interpretations of the book-which do you want to use. All this was covered in all my posts.

You have dropped by with 1 liners before, such as post #768

Old Seer wrote:

In the general conversations thread. OS

You assume I bothered to read your posts, you also assume I found anything useful in them.

Your strange discussion in Old Seer's Corner was nothing of interest to me, so I did not bother with comments in it.

What is it you want to discuss?

I'm not of the mind to go back to the beginning of this thread and start over and discuss Genesis again from go.

If you have something useful to add do so, one liners don't gain my attention much.

The question is which book do you mean? If it is the OT you mean, there are many interpretations of it, not just 2. And there are many books in it, some may be intermixed with some myth, history, and storytelling. Not one single interpretation approach covers it all.

A few of them are:

1-Literal - fundalmentalist approach - historical

2-Figurative - analogy - parables

3-Storytelling - fictional

4-Mythological - legendary

There were people who lived in the area we call Palestine. There were cities. There were kings. They were invaded. They were dominated. Others don't support the storytelling as given in the OT. Neither does archealogy.

Given that, I could just say the book is myth and storytelling in general and be done. I have instead been open to discussing the events given book by book. If you wish to join that discussion do so.

You have your opinions. How many times are you guys going to go over this kind of thing on the bible. If you haven't settled it by now you're never going to. What's it been so far ---100 years. It's another exercise in futility which Atheist claim that anyone Else's input is an excesses in futility. So---carry on, I'll watch from a distance and see another no gainer and contemplate how you call each other stupid. But that's not my opinion. So, all you want is to listen to each other and condemn any other input and come out the other end without a result, only 2 months from now someone will start it all over again. The OT is nothing more then Hebrew history. They are entitles to their own are they not. Just because it's not sanctioned by a government does mean it's not valid. Why not ask the Israelis--it's their book.

Agreed. It is utterly futile to argue facts with someone who proudly claims they have faith in magic.

One is responsible for their own inability to interpret the book not us or the Hebrews. If it's magic then why would anyone attempt to interpret tricks, that's illogical. The Hebrews have their way of expressing things which is not normally understood by westerners. We interpreted it from their point of view, and if you can't understand us you won't understand them or get the book properly understood. You're all caught in the Euro version of the document that is extremely faulty. The fault isn't the book, the fault is how one perceives it, and from what point of view. Now then (if I can be helpful) the ancients before the Hebrews saw things from a spiritual point of view. If you don't go to the spiritual point of view you won't see their side. If you want to interpret from your point of view (forensic material) you won't get anywhere. If one is superficial then the Hebrew side won't be seen. You have to get on their side of the evidence to see what they are about. If one doesn't believe in the spiritual or believe it doesn't exist then they cannot be understood. They expressed from the inner self not the external. If one looks at them from the external then it's all myth and conjecture. But that wouldn't be their fault now would it. To see an American native one has to see things from inside their Tee Pee. Looking from inside one's owned framed house won't allow proper insight to their world. Magic has nothing to do with the book. It's faulty interpretation that's the problem.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

There's two interpretations of the book-which do you want to use. All this was covered in all my posts.

You have dropped by with 1 liners before, such as post #768

Old Seer wrote:

In the general conversations thread. OS

You assume I bothered to read your posts, you also assume I found anything useful in them.

Your strange discussion in Old Seer's Corner was nothing of interest to me, so I did not bother with comments in it.

What is it you want to discuss?

I'm not of the mind to go back to the beginning of this thread and start over and discuss Genesis again from go.

If you have something useful to add do so, one liners don't gain my attention much.

The question is which book do you mean? If it is the OT you mean, there are many interpretations of it, not just 2. And there are many books in it, some may be intermixed with some myth, history, and storytelling. Not one single interpretation approach covers it all.

A few of them are:

1-Literal - fundalmentalist approach - historical

2-Figurative - analogy - parables

3-Storytelling - fictional

4-Mythological - legendary

There were people who lived in the area we call Palestine. There were cities. There were kings. They were invaded. They were dominated. Others don't support the storytelling as given in the OT. Neither does archealogy.

Given that, I could just say the book is myth and storytelling in general and be done. I have instead been open to discussing the events given book by book. If you wish to join that discussion do so.

You have your opinions. How many times are you guys going to go over this kind of thing on the bible. If you haven't settled it by now you're never going to. What's it been so far ---100 years. It's another exercise in futility which Atheist claim that anyone Else's input is an excesses in futility. So---carry on, I'll watch from a distance and see another no gainer and contemplate how you call each other stupid. But that's not my opinion. So, all you want is to listen to each other and condemn any other input and come out the other end without a result, only 2 months from now someone will start it all over again. The OT is nothing more then Hebrew history. They are entitles to their own are they not. Just because it's not sanctioned by a government does mean it's not valid. Why not ask the Israelis--it's their book.

Agreed. It is utterly futile to argue facts with someone who proudly claims they have faith in magic.

One is responsible for their own inability to interpret the book not us or the Hebrews. If it's magic then why would anyone attempt to interpret tricks, that's illogical. The Hebrews have their way of expressing things which is not normally understood by westerners. We interpreted it from their point of view, and if you can't understand us you won't understand them or get the book properly understood. You're all caught in the Euro version of the document that is extremely faulty. The fault isn't the book, the fault is how one perceives it, and from what point of view. Now then (if I can be helpful) the ancients before the Hebrews saw things from a spiritual point of view. If you don't go to the spiritual point of view you won't see their side. If you want to interpret from your point of view (forensic material) you won't get anywhere. If one is superficial then the Hebrew side won't be seen. You have to get on their side of the evidence to see what they are about. If one doesn't believe in the spiritual or believe it doesn't exist then they cannot be understood. They expressed from the inner self not the external. If one looks at them from the external then it's all myth and conjecture. But that wouldn't be their fault now would it. To see an American native one has to see things from inside their Tee Pee. Looking from inside one's owned framed house won't allow proper insight to their world. Magic has nothing to do with the book. It's faulty interpretation that's the problem.

Why would one need to interpret tricks? The need for some to have a God that is more powerful than themselves.

Westerner, Middle Easterner or whatever interpretation you choose there has to be a belief in a being that no one can describe (what's "spiritual" mean?) that performs magic tricks that the followers call miracles.

Nothing you have posted changes that.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

I like PCs not Apple. I like Rock, Heavy metal, alternative, Pop etc but despise Country. I like GM cars not Ford.

Old Seer wrote:

How many times are you guys going to go over this kind of thing on the bible. If you haven't settled it by now you're never going to.

As many times as it takes. If y'all haven't got the message out by now, why does your side still go door to door preaching about the Jesus. I'll stop when your side stops.

Old Seer wrote:

What's it been so far ---100 years.

I'm not that old.

Old Seer wrote:

It's another exercise in futility which Atheist claim that anyone Else's input is an excesses in futility.

Not always. I don't buy the god thing as promoted and taught by Christians and Muslims. Jews are another story. I'm more than willing to discuss the only physical evidence available, aka The Bible, which is what this is about. The thread drifts into dogma on occassion, but one expects that with believers. Arguing the faith thing is not the point of this thread.

Why is Enki not a possibility for the one true god? The writing about him is several thousand years older than the Abe god, and we have many originals for the Annuaki gods as well. Why your version of a god?

Old Seer wrote:

So---carry on, I'll watch from a distance and see another no gainer and contemplate how you call each other stupid.

Cap and I have more respect for each other than that. No name calling has gone on between us - read the thread.

Old Seer wrote:

But that's not my opinion. So, all you want is to listen to each other and condemn any other input and come out the other end without a result, only 2 months from now someone will start it all over again.

Ask Cap how useful my background, research and study has been for him. This thread has been active for over 3 years, it will probably continue for 3 more. We are discussing things on a mutually respectful level. Converting the other is not the point.

As to input from you, all you gave were 1 liners in this thread, no more.

Old Seer wrote:

The OT is nothing more then Hebrew history.

Nice assertion, can you prove it's all history.

Old Seer wrote:

They are entitles to their own are they not. Just because it's not sanctioned by a government does mean it's not valid. Why not ask the Israelis--it's their book.

The Israeli's are not all Jews for one, for two they are split up in understanding just like the 100s of Christian denominations on their interpretations, understanding and acceptance.

I'm aware the Hebrew Bible came from the area between Egypt and Syria - possibly only Alexandria - ask A_nony_Mouse about Made in Alexanderia in one of his threads - he says the Greek is the original created in the 2nd century BCE - see his threads if you want to play with him.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

I like PCs not Apple. I like Rock, Heavy metal, alternative, Pop etc but despise Country. I like GM cars not Ford.

Old Seer wrote:

How many times are you guys going to go over this kind of thing on the bible. If you haven't settled it by now you're never going to.

As many times as it takes. If y'all haven't got the message out by now, why does your side still go door to door preaching about the Jesus. I'll stop when your side stops.

Old Seer wrote:

What's it been so far ---100 years.

I'm not that old.

Old Seer wrote:

It's another exercise in futility which Atheist claim that anyone Else's input is an excesses in futility.

Not always. I don't buy the god thing as promoted and taught by Christians and Muslims. Jews are another story. I'm more than willing to discuss the only physical evidence available, aka The Bible, which is what this is about. The thread drifts into dogma on occassion, but one expects that with believers. Arguing the faith thing is not the point of this thread.

Why is Enki not a possibility for the one true god? The writing about him is several thousand years older than the Abe god, and we have many originals for the Annuaki gods as well. Why your version of a god?

Old Seer wrote:

So---carry on, I'll watch from a distance and see another no gainer and contemplate how you call each other stupid.

Cap and I have more respect for each other than that. No name calling has gone on between us - read the thread.

Old Seer wrote:

But that's not my opinion. So, all you want is to listen to each other and condemn any other input and come out the other end without a result, only 2 months from now someone will start it all over again.

Ask Cap how useful my background, research and study has been for him. This thread has been active for over 3 years, it will probably continue for 3 more. We are discussing things on a mutually respectful level. Converting the other is not the point.

As to input from you, all you gave were 1 liners in this thread, no more.

Old Seer wrote:

The OT is nothing more then Hebrew history.

Nice assertion, can you prove it's all history.

Old Seer wrote:

They are entitles to their own are they not. Just because it's not sanctioned by a government does mean it's not valid. Why not ask the Israelis--it's their book.

The Israeli's are not all Jews for one, for two they are split up in understanding just like the 100s of Christian denominations on their interpretations, understanding and acceptance.

I'm aware the Hebrew Bible came from the area between Egypt and Syria - possibly only Alexandria - ask A_nony_Mouse about Made in Alexanderia in one of his threads - he says the Greek is the original created in the 2nd century BCE - see his threads if you want to play with him.

I'm merely trying to be helpful. It's what the document says that is important, not who, or validity or anything as such. What does it mean, is what is important. I'm merely trying to put things on the track that we did if it's useful. It's not archeology or history that makes the book important. We didn't care about all the wheres and whyfors and whodids. My beginning post was stated as intent to help---but that is so---from what and who's perspective of things needs to be used to progress to a result. The same as =--which beaker or test tube shall we use to do the experiment in. Prerequisites must be decided. But, I apologize if I've mismanaged my input, so I will withdraw from this thread and let it be.

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

offering the possibility of it happening later. The basic gist, exact dating of scripture is unlikely. I said that from the start. That is not unusual for a writing of that time. No part of the article completely discredits the account from actually happening in history. In fact, it justifies that if dating were adjusted accordingly, it was absolutely possible. The dating we discover today most likely is more accurate than an ancient writer from thousands of years ago would have been able to conclude simply by word of mouth as most history was portrayed at the time.

Other than the fact errors of centuries are unheardof in histories from the first millenia BC and that the idea of writing history was only invented in 5th c. BC it is incredible how easily believers tell lies for no rational reason.

It is equally incredible that believers can pretend even to themselves that a 200 year error does not require adjusting all dates before and after to accomodate the change. And then they pretend they can ignore all the chronology of rulers and events as though the stretching and shrinking made no difference at all and they can ignore it the consequences of their original lie.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

This is a history thread, not a scientific thread. What testing methodology would you be looking for? If you wanted to discuss science, we can start a new thread.

You are making assertions about events in history. You are making assertions about the way people back then viewed things. They are merely assertions which unsurprisingly happen to promote your position. HOWEVER mere assertion is insufficient. If you say they viewed things in a different way then you have to test that idea BEFORE using it. How do you test your claims?

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

How can you be unaware that the only record from any priest in the 1st c. AD is Josephus? And as there is no Jesus save in what all but the most whacko agree is a forgery in his writing and as there is nothing said about any change in any event, how could you not know there is nothing to research?

I'm not. No one ever claimed the preists wrote the scriptures. Are you suggesting that no one besides the priests could have been a valid witness?

You wrote

Quote:

Quote:

Did you research how the preists perspective changed to what they claimed in the 1st century? The people didn't have a different understanding until Jesus. they trusted that the priests knew what they were talking about...

You brought up plural priestS. I said there was only one. You gratuitously INVENTED priests not changing perspective and had the balls to post and expect no challenge.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Please give me your testing methodology.

What tests do you do on history?

That claim you invented about priests for openers.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

That is simply reading not testing. And you make a stupid by inspection claim of same result. Were that true there would be only one religion incorporating all Christians and all Jews. If that is what you call a test then your test failed.

So historians are failures. Good to know. You need to explain your testing request. I think I'm just misunderstanding what you're looking for. I have yet to use that terminology with anyone when discussing history. Testing is usually something we can do with current objects, unless you're talking about carbon dating, as to which we've discussed that here as well.

The only person recognized as an historian in the 1st c. AD who wrote about events which might be related to your Jesus is Josephus. That has nothing to do with plural historians as failures. You are making up claims as you go along and refusing to test the validity of your claims. When you make a claim which has no apparent purpose other than to salvage your beliefs you have to show that claim was true in other cases in those times.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I expect the same tests of history that are applied to all other histories. For example Genesis and Exodus were tested for their descriptions of Egypt. They were found to be 100% wrong. Thus they failed the most obvious test, Does it match reality? That is what archaeology demonstrated.

show me this archaeology. If it was as conclusive as you say, there would be no believing scientists or scholars. Seminaries would fail to bring people to an authority in the following and it would in this day in age be history itself. that's not the case, so something's missing here.

Have you never read the descriptions of the king of Egypt in Genesis and Exodus? Is your knowledge of Egypt so nonexistent that you think he honored Noatic Law when it came to the bride scam Abraham pulled? Are you unaware Egypt never had chattel slavery of the kind described in Exodus? Those two very obvious examples that clearly show totally wrong. You could try reading the bible stories for many other examples.

Perhaps if educated people were to actually read the stories your hypotheticals might happen. But like you most people either ignorant or refuse to address the reconciliation of mutually exclusive "truths."

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

That is misrepresentation. Many times I have asked you for the basis for your claims. You never produced anything but refer to unprovenenced material, stuff that appeared out of no where. I have chosen to let that slide and simply ask you how you know unprovenenced material is worth consideration by rational people and you refuse to answer these questions. Seriously, what are you trying to accomplish here when all you have is mere Chataqaw Tent testimony?

Here, on this thread, all we're trying to accomplish is a fairly exhaustive historical run-through of scripture. JPTS and I have agreed that this thread is not designed to be a Biblical debate, but rather a factual run-through using history to figure out if the stories have a place or not and why.

All in all, it's just for fun... if you're looking for my claims as to my basis for belief, here is not the place. History is a piece of the puzzle that makes up my basis for belief.

As it well established there is no history in the bible and he keeps pointing that out and you keep waving off major issues like two centuries as though there were no other consequence.

You do not appear to recognize that the idea of writing history was invented by the Greeks in the mid 5th c. BC and any claim it was written by hill country illiterates in Judea before the Greek period in the 3rd c. BC is absurd.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As you know the only known source of jewish scripture is the original Greek Septuagint and there is no evidence of anything older to translate and only well known forgery claiming it is a translation.

There is evidence that the Septuagint is not the originals and therefore there is... or was something older, but we don't have those older scripts in our possession.

If there is such evidence why is it no one will produce it? I did look for that evidence and found there is none. I also found believers never tire of proclaiming their faith in the existence of evidence which does not exist. Please be the first to produce it or the millionth to weasel out of producing the evidence.

Quote:

the discussion of translation and the process of scribes for scripture is a long one in and of itself, and would be a little off topic at this point.

It is not off topic to point out there is no evidence of scribes in Judea until the 2nd c. BC. Therefore it is quite on topic to point out claims of the Judea capability to create and preserve over a half million words of text for centuries is quite absurd. The only claim the Septuagint is a crude and obvious forgery which only beleivers are willing to overlook.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

I'm curious then. Who does Finkelstein say were the Judean kings from 1000 B.C. going forward? or were there none?

Judea does not appear in history until the 2nd c. BC. Then it appears as a revolt against the rule of Aristarchus Aristobulos. The quite reasonable story recounted by Josephus is quite contrary to jewish mythology.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

One is responsible for their own inability to interpret the book not us or the Hebrews. If it's magic then why would anyone attempt to interpret tricks, that's illogical. The Hebrews have their way of expressing things which is not normally understood by westerners. We interpreted it from their point of view, and if you can't understand us you won't understand them or get the book properly understood. You're all caught in the Euro version of the document that is extremely faulty. The fault isn't the book, the fault is how one perceives it, and from what point of view. Now then (if I can be helpful) the ancients before the Hebrews saw things from a spiritual point of view. If you don't go to the spiritual point of view you won't see their side. If you want to interpret from your point of view (forensic material) you won't get anywhere. If one is superficial then the Hebrew side won't be seen. You have to get on their side of the evidence to see what they are about. If one doesn't believe in the spiritual or believe it doesn't exist then they cannot be understood. They expressed from the inner self not the external. If one looks at them from the external then it's all myth and conjecture. But that wouldn't be their fault now would it. To see an American native one has to see things from inside their Tee Pee. Looking from inside one's owned framed house won't allow proper insight to their world. Magic has nothing to do with the book. It's faulty interpretation that's the problem.

Talk about yammering. Hebrews only exist in Exodus and disappear about half way to the Promised Land where they are replaced by Israelites. They are also myth just like the Israelites and biblical Israel.

If you want to be understood why not use terms which are as used by the rest of the world?

It does appear the minimum you need do is provide the correct interpretation and demonstrate how you know it is correct. If you cannot do that you cannot pretend to know there is an alternate interpretation of any kind.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

I like PCs not Apple. I like Rock, Heavy metal, alternative, Pop etc but despise Country. I like GM cars not Ford.

Old Seer wrote:

How many times are you guys going to go over this kind of thing on the bible. If you haven't settled it by now you're never going to.

As many times as it takes. If y'all haven't got the message out by now, why does your side still go door to door preaching about the Jesus. I'll stop when your side stops.

Old Seer wrote:

What's it been so far ---100 years.

I'm not that old.

Old Seer wrote:

It's another exercise in futility which Atheist claim that anyone Else's input is an excesses in futility.

Not always. I don't buy the god thing as promoted and taught by Christians and Muslims. Jews are another story. I'm more than willing to discuss the only physical evidence available, aka The Bible, which is what this is about. The thread drifts into dogma on occassion, but one expects that with believers. Arguing the faith thing is not the point of this thread.

Why is Enki not a possibility for the one true god? The writing about him is several thousand years older than the Abe god, and we have many originals for the Annuaki gods as well. Why your version of a god?

Old Seer wrote:

So---carry on, I'll watch from a distance and see another no gainer and contemplate how you call each other stupid.

Cap and I have more respect for each other than that. No name calling has gone on between us - read the thread.

Old Seer wrote:

But that's not my opinion. So, all you want is to listen to each other and condemn any other input and come out the other end without a result, only 2 months from now someone will start it all over again.

Ask Cap how useful my background, research and study has been for him. This thread has been active for over 3 years, it will probably continue for 3 more. We are discussing things on a mutually respectful level. Converting the other is not the point.

As to input from you, all you gave were 1 liners in this thread, no more.

Old Seer wrote:

The OT is nothing more then Hebrew history.

Nice assertion, can you prove it's all history.

Old Seer wrote:

They are entitles to their own are they not. Just because it's not sanctioned by a government does mean it's not valid. Why not ask the Israelis--it's their book.

The Israeli's are not all Jews for one, for two they are split up in understanding just like the 100s of Christian denominations on their interpretations, understanding and acceptance.

I'm aware the Hebrew Bible came from the area between Egypt and Syria - possibly only Alexandria - ask A_nony_Mouse about Made in Alexanderia in one of his threads - he says the Greek is the original created in the 2nd century BCE - see his threads if you want to play with him.

I'm merely trying to be helpful. It's what the document says that is important, not who, or validity or anything as such. What does it mean, is what is important. I'm merely trying to put things on the track that we did if it's useful. It's not archeology or history that makes the book important. We didn't care about all the wheres and whyfors and whodids. My beginning post was stated as intent to help---but that is so---from what and who's perspective of things needs to be used to progress to a result. The same as =--which beaker or test tube shall we use to do the experiment in. Prerequisites must be decided. But, I apologize if I've mismanaged my input, so I will withdraw from this thread and let it be.

OS,

The document has as many interpretations as it has readers. Which version of "what it means" is the most important?

If you can send pm's you can message me instead of putting this on the thread.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

The answer to this is easily found on his web site and in his book The Bible Unearthed.

Did you pick it up yet. I still have a copy of The New Atheist Crusaders available that you suggested - remember?

It is available from Amazon from $2.95 used and $4.95 New.

I have purchased it. I remember. Understand I've been quite busy and though I have purchased it, I am working 2 jobs, raising my kid and trying to finish a cert course. It doesn't leave much time for casual reading.

i had to purchase this book. It seems most atheists live by it despite any faults that have been brought up along the way on its author.

So Finkelstein indicates there were kings, however he takes a far differing perspective on how important they were.

Well, that's exactly what it is, perspective. When it comes down to it, understanding the typical interactions of kingdoms during that time, what would a greater importance really do to the story? Maybe find more support from other kingdoms? sure... but does it change what happened?

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

And of course nothing from Assyria indicates exactly what god or gods were worshipped, so we can't determine anything to validate that.

The Bible says many. Probably not worth going through them all.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

No one argues there weren't people in Palestine, no one argues they didn't have leaders or city kings - it's the exaggerated story tales that have issues and lack of support.

a long time ago, we've talked about exaggerations. they don't invalidate a story. It's like a kid saying he saw a million ants crawling on the sidewalk. Of course he's likely way off and it was probably more like hundreds or even less than 100, but all he knows was there were a lot. Considering the perspective of the times and the people, the big numbers represent specifically... "a lot" and the small numbers represent specifically "a few". Dating wasn't as closely monitored as it is today and therefore can't necessarily be held accountable to the stories validity. It'd be like me saying something happened hundreds of years ago. If I was telling a story, those hundreds of years might be calculated to somewhere in the 1800's which is only more like 1-200 years ago, but the point remains that what i said happened still happened.

None of this has changed since day 1 when we agreed upon those possibilities.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

We can discuss the evidence available as we get to each king's reign versus other records from Assyria, Egypt and Babylon.

As we go through, I still do homework on everything we've covered up to this point. I don't remember if we talked about Pepy II or the Egyptian Admonitions. The papayrus in posession has had some difficulty in dating, but it seems that Egyptologists are split as far as it being evidence of the Exodus.

Just a random thought if you wanted to discuss it.

He reigned supposedly 2284 BCE - 2184 BCE, far to early to have anything to do with the Exodus tale. According to the Biblical story tales Abe had yet to leave Mesopotamia at this point in time.

The 1st link is to a book by Alan Henderson Gardiner titled - " The admonitions of an Egyptian sage from a hieratic papyrus in Leiden(Pap. Leiden 344 recto)" It is FREE online.

I would generally subscribe to the position that this papyrus is relevant to the Hyskos invasion, though it may be others such as the Libyans or the Bedouins.

I have obviously not read all of Gardiners book as of yet.

What is it that you see here that is relevant to the Exodus, specify either page from Gardiner or the section from the other link.

Very generally, the story in Exodus dates the reign of the particular emperor to be quite long. Pepy II happened to be one such emperor... I think the only emperor to have an extensive reign of over 80 years I think. This would fit with the story at hand. His son would have been the new emperor that grew up with Moses.

How many years off would you say this would be? Keep in mind that those first 5 books are written much later than their happenings.

You have your opinions. How many times are you guys going to go over this kind of thing on the bible. If you haven't settled it by now you're never going to. What's it been so far ---100 years. It's another exercise in futility which Atheist claim that anyone Else's input is an excesses in futility. So---carry on, I'll watch from a distance and see another no gainer and contemplate how you call each other stupid. But that's not my opinion. So, all you want is to listen to each other and condemn any other input and come out the other end without a result, only 2 months from now someone will start it all over again. The OT is nothing more then Hebrew history. They are entitles to their own are they not. Just because it's not sanctioned by a government does mean it's not valid. Why not ask the Israelis--it's their book.

Hey Old Seer. We do welcome some useful input on this thread. However, don't make assumptions on how this thread is run. JPTS and I have agreed to keep it civil. We've also agreed that we're not here to change each others minds and that it likely won't happen. Rather we're just trying to have a fun runthrough of scripture from a historical point of view. We both agreed that it would be fun and that we could both learn something from it. I know I have so far.

The biggest thing for anyone who's thinking of participating on this thread is that we're trying to keep it progressive... with the occasional revisit if something new pops up like my Exodus post a few back. But the key is to keep it historical and fact based, not opinionated. If I don't know something, I'll admit that and I'm assuming he'll do the same.

If you want to add to anything we're discussing, please do it with as little opinion as possible and it's always helpful to add links and/or book references if you've got them.

Other than the fact errors of centuries are unheardof in histories from the first millenia BC and that the idea of writing history was only invented in 5th c. BC it is incredible how easily believers tell lies for no rational reason.

Really. Unusual how you found this and others have agreed with me.. other atheists by the way. Also, the Bible was not written as a history book. To look at it as such would be ignorant.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It is equally incredible that believers can pretend even to themselves that a 200 year error does not require adjusting all dates before and after to accomodate the change. And then they pretend they can ignore all the chronology of rulers and events as though the stretching and shrinking made no difference at all and they can ignore it the consequences of their original lie.

You are making assertions about events in history. You are making assertions about the way people back then viewed things. They are merely assertions which unsurprisingly happen to promote your position. HOWEVER mere assertion is insufficient. If you say they viewed things in a different way then you have to test that idea BEFORE using it. How do you test your claims?

Ah, thanks for clarifying. So it is testing by reading. Ok. Basically you need to get out of the "religious" mindset and actually do some history homework on the specific cultures and their way of life through the ages. My 'assertions' come from looking back into where a people came from and what got them to where they are today. I guess you could test that by looking at the history and the alleged progression and see if the results are a reality today. If so, then you have your evidence.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

How can you be unaware that the only record from any priest in the 1st c. AD is Josephus? And as there is no Jesus save in what all but the most whacko agree is a forgery in his writing and as there is nothing said about any change in any event, how could you not know there is nothing to research?

I'm not. No one ever claimed the preists wrote the scriptures. Are you suggesting that no one besides the priests could have been a valid witness?

You wrote

Quote:

Quote:

Did you research how the preists perspective changed to what they claimed in the 1st century? The people didn't have a different understanding until Jesus. they trusted that the priests knew what they were talking about...

You brought up plural priestS. I said there was only one. You gratuitously INVENTED priests not changing perspective and had the balls to post and expect no challenge.

so I expected no challenge huh... Hi, welcome to the rational responders website. It seems you're new here.

If I remember correctly, I posted the quoted post in a thread challenging you with a claim that had no basis in any written history. Therefore I asked you if you had done the research on your claim, which would have required you to research specifically how the "prests perspective changed to what they claimed in the 1st century".

It is now apparent to me that you; "had the balls to post and expect no challenge"... unless you now want to prove me wrong.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The only person recognized as an historian in the 1st c. AD who wrote about events which might be related to your Jesus is Josephus. That has nothing to do with plural historians as failures. You are making up claims as you go along and refusing to test the validity of your claims. When you make a claim which has no apparent purpose other than to salvage your beliefs you have to show that claim was true in other cases in those times.

that would apply to you too right?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Have you never read the descriptions of the king of Egypt in Genesis and Exodus? Is your knowledge of Egypt so nonexistent that you think he honored Noatic Law when it came to the bride scam Abraham pulled? Are you unaware Egypt never had chattel slavery of the kind described in Exodus? Those two very obvious examples that clearly show totally wrong. You could try reading the bible stories for many other examples.

Perhaps if educated people were to actually read the stories your hypotheticals might happen. But like you most people either ignorant or refuse to address the reconciliation of mutually exclusive "truths."

well, my post that you answered this to simply asked you to "show me that archaeology". Basically I'm asking you to educate me. Maybe I really don't know. I'm not going to deny that I might not be aware of something or pretend like I know. I just want you to show me so i can investigate it myself. this is how I learn. Instead you come back with a rant... I would have expected this from a denominationalist, not a "well educated atheist".

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

As it well established there is no history in the bible and he keeps pointing that out and you keep waving off major issues like two centuries as though there were no other consequence.

see, that post right there shows that you're not even interested in a discussion. To say there's no history in the Bible is quite ignorant be it that even the most avid atheist who has an understanding of scripture will admit there is history in the Bible. Also that the Bible IS history. You're what I would call a part of the religion of atheism. Just like all other religion, you have the right understanding and everyone else must be wrong.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

You do not appear to recognize that the idea of writing history was invented by the Greeks in the mid 5th c. BC and any claim it was written by hill country illiterates in Judea before the Greek period in the 3rd c. BC is absurd.

You're viewing the Bible as a history book which it was never.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

If there is such evidence why is it no one will produce it? I did look for that evidence and found there is none. I also found believers never tire of proclaiming their faith in the existence of evidence which does not exist. Please be the first to produce it or the millionth to weasel out of producing the evidence.

Ok, what does evidence of the septuigent not being original and believers proclaiming faith have to do with each other? Older or not, the stories still stand as written and would not change the perspective of the believer. The idea that the septuigent is not original is really a sidenote. It's important for Bible scholars to know when closely analyzing scripture that there could be missing pieces from those older scripts and other discrepencies but as far as you and I are concerned, we're a long way away from discussing scripture that deeply, especially if you can't see the difference between what you wrote above.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Quote:

the discussion of translation and the process of scribes for scripture is a long one in and of itself, and would be a little off topic at this point.

It is not off topic to point out there is no evidence of scribes in Judea until the 2nd c. BC. Therefore it is quite on topic to point out claims of the Judea capability to create and preserve over a half million words of text for centuries is quite absurd. The only claim the Septuagint is a crude and obvious forgery which only beleivers are willing to overlook.

ok, why would there be? Much of what's written is dated from that point on as far as what we've got in hand. It's the content of the stories that date things much further back.

...............have you ever considered commenting on other posts at this site. Your insights and opinions could so easily be of importance to other on going discussions, speak up and help out other arguments.

...............have you ever considered commenting on other posts at this site. Your insights and opinions could so easily be of importance to other on going discussions, speak up and help out other arguments.

...............have you ever considered commenting on other posts at this site. Your insights and opinions could so easily be of importance to other on going discussions, speak up and help out other arguments.

I'll take that as a compliment, thank you.

i have commented on other posts. As of late, I've gotten quite busy and so in order to do justice to PJTS' time, I've really committed to this particular thread for the moment.

Other than the fact errors of centuries are unheardof in histories from the first millenia BC and that the idea of writing history was only invented in 5th c. BC it is incredible how easily believers tell lies for no rational reason.

Really. Unusual how you found this and others have agreed with me.. other atheists by the way. Also, the Bible was not written as a history book. To look at it as such would be ignorant.

The disclaimer to get around the very obvious problems by saying it was not written AS a history book does not change the fact that it IS in fact written in the style of history invented by Herodotus and Thucydides in the 5th c. BC. That means the books written in that style were written by someone learned that style of writing. It means it could not have been written by a bibleland native until after the Greeks took over in the 3rd c. BC. Who agrees with you is of no interest to me.

But if you truly wish to disclaim historical content instead of style then you cannot make any claims whatsoever assuming it has historical content. But in fact you only invoke the disclaimer to avoid addressing critical issues to your claims and then go on as though there is no problem with all the rest.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

It is equally incredible that believers can pretend even to themselves that a 200 year error does not require adjusting all dates before and after to accomodate the change. And then they pretend they can ignore all the chronology of rulers and events as though the stretching and shrinking made no difference at all and they can ignore it the consequences of their original lie.

yea, that must be it.

Whatever you might grant it to be in one case you must accept the consequences of the facile dodge for all consequent issues that depend upon that dodge.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

...............have you ever considered commenting on other posts at this site. Your insights and opinions could so easily be of importance to other on going discussions, speak up and help out other arguments.

I'll take that as a compliment, thank you.

i have commented on other posts. As of late, I've gotten quite busy and so in order to do justice to PJTS' time, I've really committed to this particular thread for the moment.

I have purchased it. I remember. Understand I've been quite busy and though I have purchased it, I am working 2 jobs, raising my kid and trying to finish a cert course. It doesn't leave much time for casual reading.

i had to purchase this book. It seems most atheists live by it despite any faults that have been brought up along the way on its author.

I agree with busy.

First off there was the election. I now live in swing state Colorado so I've been inundated with ads and door to door campaigning.

And of course we all are now defying the Feds since we finally legalized pot for recreational use not just medical. This takes effect in 60 days or less. Not that I smoke right now, but I have before and I was planning on getting a medical card as I get older and all my years of pushing my body to its limits catch up. Anyway, it should be fun to watch the Feds scramble to address us rebels in Colorado as well as those in Washington state.

Then I started to upgrade my computer even further than it was. I originally built it in 2011.

I had a Intel I7 quad with hyperthreading with an Asus P7P55D-E-LX board already with 8 GB of memory.

I added 8 GB more memory. I also have lots of power hungry drives as well as a Nvidia video card that eats power so then I had to upgrade the power supply to 1000W because it would on ocassion give me a BSOD as it went into current limit.

I have been trying to Install a new 256 GB Samsung 840 pro SSD for the last 4 days. Finally got it to work last night. It is a Sata 3 or 6 GB which the motherboard supports. I had issues shrinking my C drive from 1 TB to 256 GB because I had system files that were unmoveable. Nothing is unmoveable given time and understanding. I finally found a way to move them and shrink it.

And I also had to take a bunch of Tax courses to renew my Tax preparer certification with the IRS before the end of the year.

So, yeah I know busy.

I will respond to your posts and continue forward in the next few days assuming no new issues crop up on my computer.

Whenever one alters a computer that is stable one always risks pushing the limits to far. So far 24 hours no new problems. But you never know.

PJTS

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.

The disclaimer to get around the very obvious problems by saying it was not written AS a history book does not change the fact that it IS in fact written in the style of history invented by Herodotus and Thucydides in the 5th c. BC. That means the books written in that style were written by someone learned that style of writing. It means it could not have been written by a bibleland native until after the Greeks took over in the 3rd c. BC. Who agrees with you is of no interest to me.

But if you truly wish to disclaim historical content instead of style then you cannot make any claims whatsoever assuming it has historical content. But in fact you only invoke the disclaimer to avoid addressing critical issues to your claims and then go on as though there is no problem with all the rest.

boy, you're good at beating around the bush aren't ya.

Unfortunately I think you got lost here...

1. style has to do with historical content be it that style helps date the writing

2. Interesting you generalize the style of the Bible be it that there are many different literary styles within the whole Bible and some individual Bible books have a few different styles within them. I think your research is a bit flawed... or at least too generalized.

If you're going to analyze scripture to the point of criticizing style, you're going to need to do that book by book.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Whatever you might grant it to be in one case you must accept the consequences of the facile dodge for all consequent issues that depend upon that dodge.

I have purchased it. I remember. Understand I've been quite busy and though I have purchased it, I am working 2 jobs, raising my kid and trying to finish a cert course. It doesn't leave much time for casual reading.

i had to purchase this book. It seems most atheists live by it despite any faults that have been brought up along the way on its author.

I agree with busy.

First off there was the election. I now live in swing state Colorado so I've been inundated with ads and door to door campaigning.

And of course we all are now defying the Feds since we finally legalized pot for recreational use not just medical. This takes effect in 60 days or less. Not that I smoke right now, but I have before and I was planning on getting a medical card as I get older and all my years of pushing my body to its limits catch up. Anyway, it should be fun to watch the Feds scramble to address us rebels in Colorado as well as those in Washington state.

Then I started to upgrade my computer even further than it was. I originally built it in 2011.

I had a Intel I7 quad with hyperthreading with an Asus P7P55D-E-LX board already with 8 GB of memory.

I added 8 GB more memory. I also have lots of power hungry drives as well as a Nvidia video card that eats power so then I had to upgrade the power supply to 1000W because it would on ocassion give me a BSOD as it went into current limit.

I have been trying to Install a new 256 GB Samsung 840 pro SSD for the last 4 days. Finally got it to work last night. It is a Sata 3 or 6 GB which the motherboard supports. I had issues shrinking my C drive from 1 TB to 256 GB because I had system files that were unmoveable. Nothing is unmoveable given time and understanding. I finally found a way to move them and shrink it.

And I also had to take a bunch of Tax courses to renew my Tax preparer certification with the IRS before the end of the year.

So, yeah I know busy.

I will respond to your posts and continue forward in the next few days assuming no new issues crop up on my computer.

Whenever one alters a computer that is stable one always risks pushing the limits to far. So far 24 hours no new problems. But you never know.

PJTS

you've got quite the project going for sure. If anything, it puts my computer to shame. Good work. Hopefully it's all a success.

Is there a thread linked to this or was this just something you wanted to discuss?

*added*

I've watched through about half of the video at this point. I'm not sure if there's really a lot to say on this. I can say I don't fully agree with either side fairly equally. Let me know where you want to go with this.